HOW MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE WILL BE MURDERED BY BLACKS TODAY?..........THE LOOTING ACROSS AMERICA is as black as the staggering murder and crime rates of BLACKS ACROSS AMERICA. Black Lives Matter? NO LIFE MATTERS TO BLACKS!

Tuesday, September 4, 2018

BARACK OBAMA AND HIS MUSLIM-STYLE DICTATORSHIP TO SERVE CRONY BANKSTERS AND BILLIONAIRES

OPERATION OBOMB:

DESTABILIZE AMERICA TO LAY
GROUNDS FOR A MUSLIM-STYLE DICTATORSHIP

“Obama’s
new home in Washington has been described as the “nerve center” of the
anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder has said
that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned himself with the
“resistance.” Former high-level Obama campaign staffers now work with a
variety of groups organizing direct action against
Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features
lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”

“The watchdogs at Judicial
Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close
coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence
and on to the American dole.” Washington Times

“This nation no longer is a democratic republic ...rather it has become a tool of the super-rich members of the above mentioned elite who preselect our presidents based on their cooperation and complicity with the elite’s ultimate goals. Obama has, in their opinion done superbly carrying out the plans well laid out for him by his backers.”

Left-wing progressives are embracing a political alliance with Silicon Valley oligarchs who would trap Americans in a cramped future without hope of upward mobility for themselves or their children, says a left-wing political analyst in California.

Under the headline “America is moving toward an oligarchical socialism,” Joel Kotkin writes:

Historically, liberals advocated helping the middle class achieve greater independence, notably by owning houses and starting companies. But the tech oligarchy — the people who run the five most capitalized firms on Wall Street — have a far less egalitarian vision. Greg Fehrenstein, who interviewed 147 digital company founders, says most believe that “an increasingly greater share of economic wealth will be generated by a smaller slice of very talented or original people. Everyone else will increasingly subsist on some combination of part-time entrepreneurial ’gig work‘ and government aid.”

Numerous oligarchs — Mark Zuckerberg, Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay, Elon Musk and Sam Altman, founder of the Y Combinator — have embraced this vision including a “guaranteed wage,” usually $500 or a $1,000 monthly. Our new economic overlords are not typical anti-tax billionaires in the traditional mode; they see government spending as a means of keeping the populist pitchforks away. This may be the only politically sustainable way to expand “the gig economy,” which grew to 7 million workers this year, 26 percent above the year before.

Handouts, including housing subsidies, could guarantee for the next generation a future not of owned houses, but rented small, modest apartments. Unable to grow into property-owning adults, they will subsist while playing with their phones, video games and virtual reality in what Google calls “immersive computing.”

This plan, however, is being challenged by the return of populism and nationalism when President Donald Trump defeated the GOP’s corporatist candidates and the progressives’ candidate in 2016. In his 2017 inauguration, Trump declared:

For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. And while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes starting right here and right now because this moment is your moment, it belongs to you …

What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.

For several years, Kotkin has been dissecting the Democrats’ shift from working-class politics toward a tacit alliance with the billionaires in the new information-technology industries that are centralizing wealth and power through the United States. In 2013, for example, he argued that California’s politics were increasingly “feudal“:

As late as the 80s, California was democratic in a fundamental sense, a place for outsiders and, increasingly, immigrants—roughly 60 percent of the population was considered middle class. Now, instead of a land of opportunity, California has become increasingly feudal. According to recent census estimates, the state suffers some of the highest levels of inequality in the country. By some estimates, the state’s level of inequality compares with that of such global models as the Dominican Republic, Gambia, and the Republic of the Congo.

At the same time, the Golden State now suffers the highest level of poverty in the country—23.5 percent compared to 16 percent nationally—worse than long-term hard luck cases like Mississippi. It is also now home to roughly one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients, almost three times its proportion of the nation’s population.

Like medieval serfs, increasing numbers of Californians are downwardly mobile, and doing worse than their parents: native born Latinos actually have shorter lifespans than their parents, according to one recent report. Nor are things expected to get better any time soon. According to a recent Hoover Institution survey, most Californians expect their incomes to stagnate in the coming six months, a sense widely shared among the young, whites, Latinos, females, and the less educated.

“Protecting citizens from industrial capitalism’s
giant corporations? Where were the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Office of Federal
Housing Enterprise Oversight as the mortgage bubble blew up in 2008, nearly
taking the whole financial system with it and producing the worst economic bust
since the Great Depression, which even today has sunk the labor-force
participation rate and hiked the suicide rate among working-class men and women
to record levels?”

“By contrast, many voters give Barack Obama no such
credit for his analogous response to the Great Recession.”

“Mexican criminals really have infiltrated the
country and really have killed Americans, inevitably, under the
administration’s anything-goes immigration stance.”

Haunting
this year’s presidential contest is the sense that the U.S. government no
longer belongs to the people and no longer represents them. And this uneasy
feeling is not misplaced. It reflects the real state of affairs.

We have
lost the government we learned about in civics class, with its democratic
election of representatives to do the voters’ will in framing laws, which the
president vows to execute faithfully, unless the Supreme Court rules them
unconstitutional. That small government of limited powers that the Founders
designed, hedged with checks and balances, hasn’t operated for a century. All
its parts still have their old names and appear to be carrying out their old
functions. But in fact, a new kind of
government has grown up inside the old structure, like those parasites hatched
in another organism that grow by eating up their host from within, until the
adult creature bursts out of the host’s carcass. This transformation is not an
evolution but a usurpation.

What has
now largely displaced the Founders’ government is what’s called the
Administrative State—a transformation premeditated by its main architect,
Woodrow Wilson. The thin-skinned, self-righteous college-professor president,
who thought himself enlightened far beyond the citizenry, dismissed the
Declaration of Independence’s inalienable rights as so much outmoded “nonsense,”
and he rejected the Founders’ clunky constitutional machinery as obsolete. (See
“It’s Not Your Founding Fathers’
Republic Any More,” Summer 2014.) What a modern country needed, he
said, was a “living constitution” that would keep pace with the fast-changing
times by continual, Darwinian adaptation, as he called it, effected by federal
courts acting as a permanent constitutional convention.

Modernity, Wilson thought,
demanded efficient government by independent, nonpartisan, benevolent,
hyper-educated experts, applying the latest scientific, economic, and
sociological knowledge to industrial capitalism’s unprecedented problems, too
complex for self-governing free citizens to solve. Accordingly, he got Congress
to create executive-branch administrative agencies, such as the Federal Trade
Commission, to do the job. During the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt
proliferated such agencies, from the National Labor Relations Board and the
Federal Housing Administration to the Federal Communications Commission and the
Securities and Exchange Commission, to put the New Deal into effect. Before
they could do so, though, FDR had to scare the Supreme Court into stretching
the Constitution’s Commerce Clause beyond recognition, putting the federal
government in charge of all economic activity, not just interstate
transactions. He also had to pressure the justices to allow Congress to
delegate legislative power—which is, in effect, what the lawmakers did by
setting up agencies with the power to make binding rules. The Constitution, of
course, vests all legislative power in
Congress, empowering it to make laws, not to make legislators.

But the
Administrative State’s constitutional transgressions cut deeper still. If
Congress can’t delegate its legislative powers, it certainly can’t delegate
judicial powers, which the Constitution gives exclusively to the judiciary.
Nevertheless, after these administrative agencies make rules like a
legislature, they then exercise judicial authority like a court by prosecuting
violations of their edicts and inflicting real criminal penalties, such as
fines and cease-and-desist orders. As they perform all these functions, they
also violate the principle of the separation of powers, which lies at the heart
of our constitutional theory (senselessly curbing efficiency, Wilson thought),
as well as the due process of law, for they trample the citizen’s Fifth
Amendment right not to lose his property unless indicted by a grand jury and
tried by a jury of his peers, and they search a citizen or a company’s private
papers or premises, without bothering to get judge-issued subpoenas or search
warrants based on probable cause, flouting the Fourth Amendment. They can issue
waivers to their rules, so that the law is not the same for all citizens and
companies but is instead an instrument of arbitrary power. FDR himself ruefully
remarked that he had expanded a fourth branch of government that lacked
constitutional legitimacy. Not only does it reincarnate the arbitrary power of
the Stuarts’ tyrannical Star Chamber, but also it doesn’t even meet the minimal
conditions of liberty that Magna Carta set forth 801 years ago.

Adding
insult to injury, Wilson, his allies, and their current followers call
themselves “progressives,” a fatuous boast implying that they are the
embodiments and chosen instruments of the spirit of an ever-improving,
irresistible future. In tune with the German idealist philosophy that Wilson
and his circle studied, they claim to be marching toward an as-yet-unrealized
goal of human perfection. But that perfection, the German philosophers
believed, would look something like Prussia’s enlightened despotism. For
Americans to think that it is progress to move from the Founders’ revolutionary
achievement—a nation of free citizens, endowed with natural rights, living
under laws that they themselves have made, pursuing their own vision of
happiness in their own way and free to develop as fully as they can whatever
talent or genius lies within them—to a regime in which individuals derive such
rights as they have from a government superior to them is contemptible. How is
a return to subjection an advance on freedom? No lover of liberty should ever
call such left-wing statism “progressive.” In historical terms, this elevation
of state power over individual freedom is not even “liberal” but quite the
reverse.

As these agencies have
metastasized, they have borne out not a single premise that justified their
creation, and their increasingly glaring failure has drawn citizens’ angry
attention to them. Expert? As a New Deal congressman immediately recognized
with shock, many of those who staffed the Administrative State were kids just
out of law school, with zero real-world experience or technical knowledge.
Efficient? Can-do America, which built the Empire State Building in 11 months
and ramped up airplane production during World War II from 2,000 in 1939 to nearly
100,000 in 1944, now takes years of bureaucratic EPA busywork to repair a
bridge or lay a pipeline, and who knows how many businesses never expand or
even start because the maze of government regulation is too daunting and costly
to navigate? Only last year, EPA “experts” fecklessly stood by as workers under
their supervision accidentally dumped 3 million gallons of toxic wastewater
into the Colorado River, and the agency vouchsafed not a word of warning to
downstream Colorado and New Mexico officials for an entire day before the
poisonous, fluorescent-orange flood hit them. Over at Veterans Affairs, those
who’ve fought for their country die in droves while waiting for medical care.
But what’s the problem? asks agency head Robert MacDonald blithely. After
all, at ever-popular Disneyland, “do they measure the number of hours you wait
in line?”

Non-political?
Ask Lois Lerner at the Internal Revenue Service. Oh wait: she pleaded the Fifth
Amendment—and her boss, John Koskinen, simply ignores Congress’s orders, even
as more than 2,000 of his enforcement agents have acquired military-grade
weaponry, among 200,000 of such administrative-agency officers now similarly
equipped with lethal arms, presumably for coercion of the citizens they
supposedly serve. Or there’s the Federal Elections Commission and the Federal
Communications Commission, lackeys of President Obama and his ultra-partisan
agenda.

Protecting citizens from industrial capitalism’s
giant corporations? Where were the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Office of Federal
Housing Enterprise Oversight as the mortgage bubble blew up in 2008, nearly
taking the whole financial system with it and producing the worst economic bust
since the Great Depression, which even today has sunk the labor-force
participation rate and hiked the suicide rate among working-class men and women
to record levels?

Moreover, from the establishment of the first administrative
agency—the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887, essentially designed to
create shared railroad cartels—these agencies have been key instruments of
crony capitalism, which today often takes the form of senators and congressmen
pressuring agencies for rule changes or waivers to benefit their contributors,
usually at the expense of their competitors as well as the public, as the
author of the recent Confessions of Congressman X complains of his
fellow legislative “puppets.” Little wonder that today’s Americans think that
such people don’t represent them. Pollsters report that trust in government is
at its lowest level ever, with only 19 percent expecting government to do the
right thing, according to last year’s Gallup and Pew polls.

Ensuring
the citizens’ health and safety? Where is the Food and Drug Administration as
counterfeit medicines and medical supplies from China infiltrate our hospitals?
As for the infamously dysfunctional Transportation Security Administration, its
Keystone Kops’ regularly reported inability to spot journalists carrying banned
weapons onto airplanes, while they are too busy fondling travelers’ private
parts or undressing grannies, is a standing national joke—on us. We lost our
constitutional safeguards for this?

FDR spewed out his
agencies in a “try anything” spirit to cure a Depression that his predecessor’s
misguided palliatives had worsened, and debate still surges over whether the
New Deal agencies did harm or good, putting aside their doubtful legitimacy.
But the majority of Americans at the time gave the president credit for good
intentions. By contrast, many voters
give Barack Obama no such credit for his analogous response to the Great
Recession. They see it as a cynically calculated ploy to extend
government’s power over the people, especially given the White House chief of
staff’s crack that a president should “never let a good crisis go to waste.” So
on the pretext of addressing the financial crisis, the administration partially
socialized American medicine with legislation that only Democrats voted for,
without bothering to read it, and that citizens who opposed the measure—still a
solid majority of those polled—saw as a kind of coup d’état, framed with utter
irresponsibility and ignoring the scary financial mess. As happened during the
New Deal, a timid Supreme Court found the act constitutional only by the
politically driven legerdemain frequent in that institution’s checkered
history. It struck many as flimflam, not government by consent.

The
result was a spectacular expansion of the Administrative State, with some 150
new agencies and commissions created; no one knows the exact number. And these
agencies purposely removed the Administrative State even further from
government by the people. One agency, the Independent Payment Advisory
Board—the so-called death panel—is so democratically unaccountable that
Congress can only abolish it by a three-fifths vote in both houses within a
seven-month period next year. After that, the law bars Congress from altering
any of the board’s edicts, a provision as far from democratic self-government
as you can get.

When the
administration finally confronted the financial crisis, lengthened by
Obamacare’s disincentives to hiring, its reflex response was to expand the
Administrative State still further with the Dodd-Frank Act, named for its two
legislative sponsors, both of whom had been in bed with the mortgage racket,
one figuratively and one literally. Whether it solved the problem is dubious.
What is certain is that it is as undemocratic as Obamacare, with its Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, whose budget Congress can’t control, its Financial
Stability Oversight Council, whose rulings no court may review, and its army of
regulators occupying the big banks and squeezing multimillion-dollar penalties
out of CEOs clinging to their supersize compensation, regardless of what
happens to the stockholders. Meanwhile, the opaque Federal Housing Finance
Agency, formed during the crisis to salvage the misbegotten mortgage giants
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, seems bent on nationalizing permanently this
sizable chunk of the economy, putting the government in charge of citizens’
housing as well as their health care.

As for
the “stimulus” that was supposed to give a Keynesian boost to the economy:
since you can’t prove a negative, no one can show that if all that money had
stayed in the private economy, it would have created more jobs and economic
growth than the economically anemic Obama era has done. What unemployed or
underemployed workers saw, though, is that a good portion of stimulus money
went to protect the jobs of public employees, whose welfare evidently trumps
that of the citizens whom they supposedly serve. Coal miners saw that, even as
the administration aimed to kill their jobs, its stimulus shoveled out hundreds
of millions of dollars to now-defunct Solyndra and other nonviable,
crony-capitalist “green” energy companies, supposed solutions to a
global-warming crisis that many think a hoax, though some two dozen public
officials seem keen to suppress, Inquisition-style, the very utterance of that
thought. And voters noticed that America’s three highest-income counties are in
the Washington suburbs that house the federal government’s recession-proof
functionaries. (See “Hail Columbia!,” Winter 2013.)

Unease over illegal
immigration also has stoked today’s fear that the government no longer belongs
to the people, and it’s important to understand the separate but mutually
reinforcing ways that it has done so. Once again, President Obama has made a
bad situation worse—this time, by his contemptuous refusal to execute the laws
faithfully. His catch-and-release policy for illegal border-crossers, as well
as his ban on deporting young aliens brought here by their illegal-immigrant
parents, are imperial, antidemocratic edicts that might have sparked
impeachment proceedings, had not Congress’s silly move to impeach Bill Clinton
for lying about his sex games with an intern tainted that weapon for years to
come. The result of Obama’s diktat, as contrary to the spirit of the Founders’
Constitution as is the Administrative State, is that law-abiding taxpayers must
pay for the kids’ welfare support, health care, and schooling—as they already
do for “anchor babies” born to mothers who have sneaked over the U.S. border for
the purpose of having a child eligible for “child-only” welfare benefits,
scarcely less than ordinary welfare payments and vastly more than the income of
Central American peasant families. No American voted to incur these costs,
which, if current trends continue, are likely to persist for several
generations of such families, so they amount to taxation without representation
as naked as George III’s.

As for the illegals who work, often for long
hours at low pay, off the books: because immigrants, 13 percent of the
population, hold 17 percent of the jobs—and no one knows the percentage of
workers who are here illegally—jobless working-class citizens have
understandably concluded that a lawless government, by countenancing such cheap
labor, is taking the bread out of their mouths. Should they eat cake instead?

America’s highest-income counties are in the suburbs that house
Washington’s recession-proof functionaries.

What
citizens want to know is that, of all the world’s people who seek to live in
America, our government will admit those who come legally, whose families will
not harm us, and who will add to the wealth of the nation, not reap where they
have not sown. After all, public safety—not clean energy or national health
care—is government’s purpose. Nevertheless, Mexican

criminals really have infiltrated the

country and really have
killed

Americans, inevitably, under the

administration’s anything-goes

immigration stance.Further, it’s no comfort to any American who has
suffered loss from an Islamist terror attack within our borders—from Ground
Zero and Fort Hood to San Bernardino and Orlando—that such incidents pose no
threat to our existence as a nation, as the president has said by way of
reassurance, while refusing to call such outrages by their right name. How many
citizens would have to die in a dirty-bomb attack in Grand Central Terminal for
such events to strike him as a threat to the nation’s existence?

The
question of providing a path to citizenship for the 12 million illegal aliens
already here is also germane to the debate about whom the U.S. government
serves and to whom it belongs. Talk radio’s Rush Limbaugh jokes that “illegal
aliens” is a politically incorrect term; we must say “undocumented Democrats”
instead. But it’s a joke with a barb, for
no one can doubt that these 12 million, if they could vote, would vote for the
Democratic program of an ever-larger, richly paid government extracting
ever-larger transfer payments from productive workers to the dependent
poor—James Madison’s definition of the tyranny of the majority in Federalist10. With black poverty and exclusion steadily ameliorating,
thanks to decades of striving by well-intentioned Americans of all races—even
though Obama’s ex–attorney general Eric
Holder devoted his tenure to denying this plain truth—the Democratic Party
needs a new class of victims to justify its “helping” agenda and its immense
cadre of well-paid government “helpers.” Central American peasants fill the
bill.

Formerly,
our open economy drew the enterprising and energetic to these shores, and our
lack of a public safety net, with only private ethnic and religious charities
to help the unfortunate, meant that those who couldn’t contribute to the U.S.
economy went home. But today, when we
have a vast welfare state that didn’t exist during earlier waves of
immigration, the mothers of anchor babies come for handouts, and even the
children of hardworking legal Hispanic immigrants end up on the welfare rolls
at troublesomely high rates. In addition, our showering of self-proclaimed
refugees with welfare benefits, which attracts the shiftless rather than the
enterprising, only compounds the government-sustained dependency
problem—dependency upon taxpayers who didn’t choose this particular
philanthropy.

The phalanx of privately
supported settlement houses and other institutions that met the great
immigration wave around the turn of the twentieth century, along with the
public school system, aimed to “Americanize” the new arrivals—teaching them our
language, manners, and customs, and especially our republican civic ethic.
Culture, after all, is as important an element of national identity as
political institutions. To become an American in those days meant little more
than learning English and subscribing to a broadly shared creed of
self-reliance, self-government, self-improvement, and allegiance to a tolerant
nation that most people agreed was unique in the freedom and opportunity it
afforded—as well as in its readiness to confer citizenship on newcomers who
almost universally desired it. But
today’s legal Hispanic immigrants often don’t apply for American citizenship,
or retain dual nationalities: Americanization often is not high on their
agendas.

Moreover,
our new doctrine of multiculturalism gives today’s immigrants nothing to
assimilate to, since current intellectual fashion—set by the universities,
Hollywood, and the mainstream media—celebrates everything that makes us
different rather than the creed that once made one nation out of many
individuals. And multiculturalism’s accompanying creed of victimology
encourages dependency rather than self-reliance. Who are the victimizers of
illegal Hispanic aliens? According to today’s politically correct
“progressivism,” it is the neocolonial United States that has exploited the
Third World’s natural resources, shored up its ruling oligarchies, and
subverted its incipient democratic governments. And then it further victimizes
them with racism when they try to escape to this country.

Deference
to the greater wisdom of government, which Wilsonian progressivism deems a
better judge of what the era needs and what the people “really” want than the
people themselves, has been silently eroding our unique culture of enterprise,
self-reliance, enlightenment, and love of liberty for decades. But if we cease
to enshrine American exceptionalism at the heart of our culture—if we set equal
value on such Third World cultural tendencies as passive resignation, fatalism,
superstition, devaluation of learning, resentment of imaginary plots by the
powerful, and a belief that gratification deferred is gratification forgone—the
exceptionalism of our institutions becomes all the more precarious.

Supercharging
American anger over illegal immigration and its consequences is the politically
correct ban on openly discussing it, with even the most reasoned reservation
dismissed as racism and yahooism. And political correctness generates its own
quantum of anger among citizens, who think of freedom of speech and debate as
central to American exceptionalism. But elite culture stigmatizes plain
speaking, so that now a rapist or a murderer is a “person who committed a
crime” or an “individual who was incarcerated,” says the Obama Department of
Justice, or, according to the latest humbug from the Department of Education, a
“justice-involved individual.” Implicit in these euphemisms is the theory that
“society,” not the criminal, is to blame for crime, a long-exploded idea aimed
at blurring the distinction between right and wrong.

That’s
what makes it so disheartening to learn that the University of California has
just deemed it a politically incorrect offense to declare America a land of
opportunity, so as not to stigmatize those who’ve failed to seize it. It’s
disheartening not only because such a retreat from our traditional culture will
hold back immigrants, but also because our long cultural unraveling already has
damagingly demoralized the native-born working class in the face of economic
change. They dimly know that, and part of what makes them so angry is what they
have allowed themselves to become.

When Theodore Roosevelt,
who unsuccessfully ran against Woodrow Wilson in 1912 on the Progressive Party
ticket, first declared his intention to go into politics, his fellow clubmen
jeered at him for wanting to associate with the “saloon-keepers, horse-car
conductors,” and other “rough and brutal” characters running the nation’s
political parties. “I answered,” recalled TR, “that if this were so it merely
meant that the people I knew did not belong to the governing class, and that
the other people did—and that I intended to be one of the governing class.”
That’s the true voice of “progressivism” speaking. As the Founders often
cautioned, a self-governing republic doesn’t have a governing class. Part of America’s
current predicament is that it now has such a class, and the American people
are very angry about it.

Myron Magnet, City Journal’s editor-at-large and its
editor from 1994 through 2006, is a recipient of the National Humanities Medal.
His latest book is The Founders at Home.

Time for America to get through the fog and wake up

It's
harder than ever to know what's going on in today's messed up world, thanks to
the flood of misinformation and the political censorship of mainstream news and
social media. It seems at times best to shut out the noise, put in a
good day's work, and conclude with a prayer. Unfortunately, that
luxury is no longer an option in today's ruptured America.

What
comes clearest through the fog of misinformation and censorship may be
identified as a sort of table of essential requirements for today's
Americans. Americans are being made to believe that to be decent
people, they have to

renounce the
sovereignty of their country

accept illegal
migration across the Mexican border

allow instant
citizenship to illegal migrants

allow exposing
themselves to foreign terrorists

condone Islamic
jihad and accept sharia law

tolerate the
vilification of police officers

accept the export
of American jobs to other countries

denigrate America's
heritage and remove its symbols

denounce people of
white skin

reject the nature
and reality of male and female

reject freedom of
speech

Missing
from this list (admittedly incomplete) is the disclaimer that each one of these
requirements is the opposite of what decent Americans should
do.

Notice
the reversal
of moral value – a major tactic of the left to deconstruct America and
groom it for socialist-communist domination and takeover, which seems
outrageously stupid, given the historic and ongoing failure of collectivism to
make life good for anyone. In language free of academic frills, this
reversal-of-moral-value tactic may be summarized this way: take something
considered evil by the opposition, recast it in language that makes it sound
good, then accuse opponents of being against what is
"right." It's a tactic also used to smear opponents with
the faults of the smearers, who, need it be said, need to take a hard look in
the mirror.

The
ceaseless broadcast of falsehood-as-truth from the mainstream media – the voice
of the left since most of us have been alive – continues to stifle the ability
of Americans to see that they are being played like pawns on a
global chessboard– or learn that prominent globalist schemers finance NGOs,
lobbyists, and demonstrations against everything and everybody standing in the
way of their agenda
for global hegemony, let alone be given the opportunity to ask why these
"elites" should be in charge of our lives or question whether their
"superior wisdom" is in fact superior arrogance and power.

Moneyed
egomaniacs with an obsession to lord it over others, if it means stripping them
of their freedom, or even their right to live, were never more
active. Enemies of America, external and internal, are doubling
their efforts to destabilize America by creating discord and division and
inciting violence. The talk of "civil war" in the air
highlights the fact that the very basics of civil order and well-being are being
attacked, even in high places, a red flag indicating very bad
management by central and local government officials. The
need to wake up has never been greater.

A
full review of all that has been happening behind closed doors is not necessary
to know that the time is now for sensible people of good
will to vote out of office all who choose not to defend America against its
enemies, foreign and domestic, or choose to violate their oath to
uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States – and vote in those
whose words and deeds show a dedication to America, its core values, and its
Constitution.

Anthony J. DeBlasi is a war veteran and lifelong defender of
Western culture.

“Some of you think that I’m just somebody who’s got something out for the Jewish people. You’re stupid. Do you think I would waste my time if I did not think it was important for you to know Satan? My job is to pull the cover off of Satan so that he will never deceive you and the people of the world again,” Farrakhan said in 2011.

TEL AVIV – American Jewish leaders expressed outrage over the place of honor given to virulently antisemitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan at Aretha Franklin’s funeral on Friday.

Farrakhan was seated in the front row alongside other controversial African-American figures, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Former president Bill Clinton sat three places to Farrakhan’s left.

Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, said it was “jarring” to see a “hatemonger” like Farrakhan at the funeral.

“It was absolutely jarring to see one of America’s leading purveyors of antisemitism given a place of such prominence at Aretha’s funeral,” Greenblatt told the Algemeiner. “We join the country in mourning the Queen of Soul, but this was an honor that an unapologetic hatemonger like Farrakhan didn’t deserve.”

“Like millions of other Americans who grew up listening to Aretha Franklin’s amazing voice, I was saddened by her passing. Putting Louis Farrakhan in a seat of honor in the first row on stage, near President Clinton and amidst a generation of African-American political and religious leaders was equally saddening,” Cooper said in a statement to the Algemeiner.

“50 years ago Aretha Franklin received an award from Martin Luther King Jr. and toured the country to raise money for the struggling Civil Rights Movement,” he added. “For decades Farrakhan has stood against everything MLK lived and died for. He hates America and hates Jews. Aretha Franklin wasn’t a hater. The sight of his smiling face on stage soured the heartfelt music and words during the marathon tribute to a great icon.”

Betty Ehrenberg , executive director of the World Jewish Congress North America, lamented Farrakhan’s status as a role model for activists and candidates for office.

“We were dismayed to learn that Farrakhan was seated in a prominent place at the funeral of a widely revered artist,” she said. “And it is equally dismaying to see him being admired by some newly emerging activists and candidates for office who should not associate with an unapologetic antisemite with a long history of racist views.”

Abraham Foxman, head of the Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at New York’s Museum of Jewish Heritage, told the Algemeiner, “Sadly the African-American community has a blind spot when it comes to antisemitism. They have always given a pass to Louis Farrakhan’s racism and antisemitism. They don’t recognize him as a racist and antisemite, and that’s sad for the relationship between our two communities.”

Renowned law professor Alan Dershowitz expressed his dismay that Clinton appeared alongside Farrakhan.

“I know there was a relationship 30 years earlier between Louis Farrakhan and Aretha Franklin. I don’t know if that relationship continued, or whether the family invited him, but I think any president should have said, ‘No. If you want me on the stage, you can’t have a bigot like Farrakhan sitting next to me,’” he told Fox & Friends.

“You just can’t mainstream and allow legitimacy to a man who has expressed the kind of hateful views he’s expressed of Jews, of white people, of gays,” he added.

Democratic New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind called the incident “shocking.”

“Louis Farrakhan, front and center, treated like royalty? What is this obsession with America’s Black Hitler? In spite of his crude, vicious comments about Jews, whites, gays, he is placed up front with President Clinton? Shocking!”

Earlier this year, Farrakhan delivered a rancorous anti-Semitic rant at the 2018 Saviour’s Day event in Chicago, calling Jews members of the “Synagogue of Satan” and claiming that Jesus called the Jews “the children of the devil” and “when you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door.”

“Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out turning men into women and women into men. And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through,” the Nation of Islam leader said.

After Franklin died last month, Farrakhan released a statement saying, “In 1972, when I was minister in New York City, Temple No. 7, the police attacked our mosque. Within a few hours, Aretha Franklin came to the mosque, to my office, and said that she saw the news and came as quickly as she could to stand with us and offer us her support.”

“We marveled at her show of courage, fearlessness which was rooted in her profound love for her people and her desire for justice for us,” Farrakhan added.

ERIC HOLDER TOOK PHOTO WITH ANTI-

SEMITE LOUIS FARRAKHAN AT ARETHA

FRANKLIN’S FUNERAL

Former Attorney General Eric Holder stood for a photo with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

Farrakhan is a notorious racist and anti-Semite and has ties to several prominent Democrats.

A spokesman for Holder said the photo didn’t constitute an endorsement but would not say whether Holder is willing to condemn Farrakhan’s bigotry.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder on Friday posed with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan in a photo that went largely unnoticed over the holiday weekend.

Farrakhan is a notorious racist and anti-Semite who has praised Hitler as a “very great man,” claimed that interracial marriage “mongrelized” the black race and repeatedly espoused conspiracy theories about “satanic” Jews.

Holder now leads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC) and is reportedly weighing running for president in 2020.

“When asked, Mr. Holder participated in a photo taken with the people on stage at the Aretha Franklin services. It was in no way an endorsement or expression of support for anyone,” NDRC spokesman Patrick Rodenbush told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an email.

Rodenbush did not answer whether Holder is willing to condemn Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism.

The photographer who took the photo worked for a Nation of Islam publication and withheld the photo until after Obama left office to avoid hurting his political career.

Following the publication of the Obama-Farrakhan photo, other prominent Democrats including Reps. James Clyburn of South Carolina and Maxine Waters of California were revealed to have attended events with Farrakhan and have since declined to denounce him.

Clyburn has said he is willing to consider running for Speaker of the House if Democrats retake the lower chamber in November’s midterm elections.

Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison repeatedly attended meetings with Farrakhan during his time in Congress, despite claiming that he had cut ties with the anti-Semite decades earlier.

Despite misleading the public about his Farrakhan ties, Ellison has remained the deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and last month won the Democratic nomination for Minnesota attorney general.

NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY SUCKED IN MORE BRIBES FROM CRIMINAL BANKSTERS THAN BARACK OBAMA!

This was not because of difficulties in securing indictments or convictions. On the contrary, Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate committee in March of 2013 that the Obama administration chose not to prosecute the big banks or their CEOs because to do so might “have a negative impact on the national economy.”

GEORGE SOROS PARTNERS WITH BARACK OBAMA and ERIC HOLDER TO CREATE A GLOBALIST REGIME FOR THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS and CRONY BANKSTERS…. Open borders and endless hordes of illegals will make it happen!

YOU WONDERED WHY OBAMA-HOLDER WORKED SO HARD TO SABOTAGE AMERICAN VOTING FOR MORE ILLEGALS???

Those are the subliterate, low-skill, non-English-speaking indigents whose own societies are unable or unwilling to usefully educate and employ them. Bring these people here and they not only need a lot of services, they are putty in the hands of leftist demogogues as Hugo Chavez demonstrated - and they are very useful as leftist voters who will support the Soros agenda.

ILLEGALS VOTING ILLEGALLY

Of course, the game of the Democrats is to avoid at all costs any of the safeguards against fraud, such as photo ID requirements. That should tell anyone with integrity what they are up to. But most media continue to ignore this stain on democracy. THOMAS LIFSON – AMERICAN THINKER

BARACK OBAMA and ERIC HOLDER’S SABOTAGE OF HOMELAND SECURITY: The “zero tolerance” program was dismantled by Attorney General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the transit of migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much that officials only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014 letter by two pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain. NEIL MUNRO

What did Obama do for black Americans during the 8 years he and Holder were sabotaging our laws and borders to get more Mexicans into our voting booths?!?

“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.” Washington Times

"This is country belongs to Mexico" is said by the Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN, belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and California through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!

The “zero tolerance” program was dismantled by Attorney General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the transit of migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much that officials only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014 letter by two pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain.

“The cost of the Dream Act is far bigger than the Democrats or their media allies admit. Instead of covering 690,000 younger illegals now enrolled in former President Barack Obama’s 2012 “DACA” amnesty, the Dream Act would legalize at least 3.3 million illegals, according to a pro-immigration group, the Migration Policy Institute.”

“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.” Washington Times

The “zero tolerance” program was dismantled by Attorney General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the transit of migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much that officials only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014 letter by two pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain.

WIKILEAKS EXPOSES THE OBAMA CONSPIRACY TO FLOOD AMERICAN WITH DEM VOTING ILLEGALS

“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.” Washington Times

"This is country belongs to Mexico" is said by the Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN, belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and California through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!

Previous generations of immigrants did not believe they were racially superior to Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica, by Jose Vasconcelos, Mexico’s former education minister and a presidential candidate. According to this book, republished in 1979 by the Department of Chicano Studies at Cal State LA, students of Scandinavian, Dutch and English background are dullards, blacks are ugly and inferior, and those “Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack enterprise. The superior new “cosmic” race of Spaniards and Indians is replacing them, and all Yankee “Anglos.” LLOYD BILLINGSLEY/ FRONTPAGE mag

Frothing at the mouth in anticipatory glee over the prospect of
a horde of high school students delivering a deathblow to a "deeply
flawed" Constitution, once
again, Barack Obama aired his feelings on Twitter.

Just last month, in a tweet encouraging "young people"
to "march and organize to remake the world [not as it is but] as [Marxists
think it] should be," Obama quoted
Saul Alinsky.

More recently, while Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student
David Hogg inadvertently gave a Nazi
salute and Emma
"LGBT" Gonzalez displayed
a Cuban flag on her right sleeve, Barack took to Twitter again.

This time, the former president said the following:

Question: Does Barry think token references to "angry
Black women" somehow give
credibility to leftist ideas? Either way, whatever the motivation to
include Michelle, by and large, the former president's latest tweet was classic
Obama.

As always, Barack began by mentioning how "inspired" he
is by the "young people." Then, after his usual
perfunctory "inspired" comment, Obama went on to praise the Jugend for having "made [the] marches
happen." The problem with Barry's second remark is that he,
more than anyone, is well aware that left-wing
sources financed the
march.

Nonetheless, with a direct reference to Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #8,
which instructs revolutionaries to "keep the pressure on," Barack
then encouraged anti-gun activists to "keep at it." The
former community change agitator also sounded confident that
"nothing," including the Second Amendment, "can stand in the way
of millions of voices calling for change."

Rest assured: Obama slipping Alinsky into a tweet is not an
innocuous incident, nor is it a coincidence when a street thug of his stature
urges large groups of left-wingers to "march forward." In
other words, by prodding 800,000 useful idiots with the words "you're
leading us forward," Obama added Marxism to the Alinsky mix.

The formal adoption of "Forward" as a campaign slogan
came about during the 2012
presidential campaign. For
the record, the concept of progressives pressing forward was not
Barack Obama's idea; it's a concept associated with European Marxism.

In an article dated April 30, 2012, titled "New Obama slogan
has long ties to Marxism, socialism," Victor Morgan of the
Washington Times explained:

The slogan 'Forward' reflected the conviction of European Marxists
and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would
move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

In the piece, Morgan cited Vladimir Lenin's political
journal Vpered! (the
Russian word for "forward") and mentioned two German publications
with similar themes, entitled Vorwärts, (the
German word for "forward"). Morgan wrote:

One was the daily newspaper of the Social Democratic Party of
Germany whose writers included Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky. It still
publishes as the organ of Germany's SDP, though that party has changed
considerably since World War II. Another was the 1844 biweekly reader of the
Communist League. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin are among the names
associated with that publication.

At National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg clarified
further how Obama views the "Forward" concept. Goldberg
wrote:

"Forward" is simply a synopsis of the progressive
understanding of the State. The State has always been seen by the
left as the engine of history. When Obama says he's about going
Forward, he's also saying that he thinks the government is the thing that moves
us all forward, that the State is the source of Progress[.] ... If we are to
go forward it must in the saddle of the State.

Thus, the word "forward" has profound significance to
Barack Obama, as well as to the left.

Even still, Barack "Share the Wealth" Obama had never
come right out and identified himself as a full-fledged
statist, but, as his time in the
White House demonstrated, the former president was, and is, deeply committed to
the hope that the state will one day restrict the right to bear arms.

Barry's mouthpiece even found time to promote her boss's false
talking point that just days after surviving a deadly school shooting,
traumatized students secured a venue, chartered buses, came up with a slogan, and
organized a march.

Meanwhile, in hopes of continuing to

desensitize the public to
Marxism, back

home in his $8.1-million Kalorama

mansion, Barack Obama hid
behind his

keyboard. Tweeting that marchers are

"leading us
forward" was likely an

attempt by Obama to infuse the

discussion with
another socialist

catchphrase.

In the end, after spending eight years manipulating the psyche of
an easily fooled public, under the auspices of tweeting in support of a spontaneous
event, Barack Obama confirmed
that marching forward is
still an essential part of "fundamentally transforming America."

Cosa Sinistra: The Left as
Crime Family

The
left indeed has become a family. Unfortunately, it often resembles
the Gotti crime family (hat tip: Larry Schweikart).

Let's
face it: Republicans have their share of corruption, but what the left has
become is not tinged with the normal shortcomings of humanity. It's
become criminal.

Literally. Fully. And
seriously.

Let's
look at a few shades of leftist criminality. I don't mean the common
finger-pointing, where leftists claim that anything done by the center-right is
"criminal." Like being for tax cuts. Being
pro-life. Or against illegal immigration. Voting for
Trump was criminal. The left thinks anyone to its right is criminal.

But
most sane people know that's not true. It's hyperbole for the sake
of cowing those who hold differing opinions. It's a political smear
writ large – and, might I say, projection. Leftist often accuse
others of doing what they do. Not only does it help them feel better
about themselves, but it's a strategy to gain and hold power over others.

In
itself, that mindset isn't essentially criminal. Maybe you could say
it's a shade of gray or misdemeanor. But therein lies the first step
on the road to where they ended up. They begin by stepping across a
line, and they wake up fully criminal. Let's follow the path
downward.

The
early Clinton escapades weren't the outcome of being Boy
Scouts. Using political influence to do a land deal in Arkansas, or
to gain $100,000 in the commodity market for being the governor's wife, was a
pretty good sign of who they are – as were Bill's early sexual predations and
Hillary's early persecution of the women he used.

The thuggishness of
Barack was clear early on. There was his land deal, wherein he enriched
himself with Tony Rezko in Chicago. All his political wins came by
nefariously taking out his political opponents rather than beating them fairly
in the arena of ideas. Everyone should have known.

They
all got away with their less than honest early deals but were awarded more
power as a result of their nefarious actions. The left loved their
ability to lie as they skated through the finish line unscathed.

The
next big step up the ladder for the Clintons was becoming
president. Posing as the married version of Jimmy Stewart playing
Mr. Smith, they simply dug into the seediest side of
politics. Having succeeded in the small pay-to-play of Arkansas,
they let it all loose on Washington, D.C.

The
Clintons were the ones to begin the full politicization of the
DOJ. Remember when they fired every single attorney at the DOJ,
replacing them with their own loyalists? That was
1993. Our cheerleading leftist media said nothing. After
all, they were kindred souls staying silent in the face of shared corruption. Then
there was the matter of the famous FBI files the Clintons pilfered, the secret
files that illegally gave them dirt (and leverage) on their political
opponents. Yeah, Bill, "a bureaucratic
snafu." And no, that's not what it was. It was simply
aggrandizement of criminal power.

They
would go on to trading secrets of rocket technology to the Chinese for
political donations – a deal that would advance Chinese missile capacity twenty
years overnight. I remember Tim Russert pleading on Meet
the Press" for the media to start reporting because "this was
really happening." Well, they got away with that, too – along
with a host of other illegal and nasty activities.

Barack
had his share of shady dealings once he hit D.C., but was a bit more circumspect
in hiding what he was doing. Nurtured under the Chicago political
machine, the master school of pay-to-play politics, everyone should have known
the kind of corrupt monster he was. Instead, he convinced boatloads
of people, and a gullible, like-minded media, that he was some kind of
light-worker who healed the Earth.

Under
that guise, he was scorching the earth.

He
began his funneling of money to leftist causes right away with his
"stimulus package," stimulating and filling the coffers of his
pay-to-playmates. Many of his bundlers simply took money, as they
did in the Solydra solar deal, absconding with millions of dollars and
producing nothing. His union leaders scored tons of
money. As the rest of the U.S. floundered, his already well heeled
donors were paid handsomely from this illicit mess. To this day, we
don't know where most of that money went. Uncle Joe Biden just
turned a blind eye. And no one suffered for his ugly, illegal
collusion to steal from the public trough.

Contrary
to media and Democratic Parry claims, St. Barack didn't have a scandal-free
presidency. Far from it – most of it was nothing but scandal,
unreported by the fawning press. It was a time period where the
media refused to call out the obvious and many scandals for what they
were. Let's just say they were kindred souls, fellow travelers, the
media and St. Barack. Friends and bundlers receiving money for
nothing.

Fast
and Furious. The IRS targeting. The weaponizing of the
bureaucracies. Just to name a few. Heck, if a leftist
political fact-check site calls your Obamacare lie the "lie of the
year," it had to be the lie of the century.

Make
no mistake: the Clinton-Obama axis was criminal already, pay-to-play was their
M.O., and they had gotten away with it for years.

Let's
fast-forward to the heavy stuff. And this is the stuff that is
darkly criminal, no shades of gray here.

The
Clinton Foundation. Clearly, they enriched themselves with
pay-to-play schemes. The reports of Hillary's dealings as secretary
of state with those who paid the Clinton Foundation are
legion. Documents upon documents introducing themselves to Madame
Secretary were earmarked by a staffer "FOB." This was the
sign of favor, the way to get to see her, the way to get favors in
return. You had to be a donor. FOB, indeed.

Uranium
One, the Mother of All Scandals, is typical. This was a matter of
one hundred fifty million dollars, mysteriously donated by Russian interests,
who benefited after all the parties in the U.S. government signed
off. Bill's speaking fees in Moscow were Over 600K per speech –
double his normal pay-to-play fee.

The
Trump Dossier. Paid for by the Hillary campaign. Used as
a pretense to spy on the Trump campaign. Used as a pretense for the
so-called collusion case.

All
of this is deeply criminal – nor gray, lacking even the slightest hint of
another explanation. And we now know that all these cases are being
investigated and have been for months. We now know there are four
separate criminal cases being investigated with Clinton
involvement.

St.
Barack? He's been having a great time partying with the Hollywood
moguls, all the while thinking his breee-illiant "insurance" plan to
get rid of Trump was on.

A
funny thing happened on the way to the forum: all his fellow travelers are
being outed. The cadre of FBI agents and DOJ political
partisans: Strzok, McCabe, Ohr, Comey, Brennan, and so many others are
being outed for their own forms of, yes, criminality. Helping with
the phony Steele Trump dossier while you are high up at the FBI or DOJ is
criminal. Going to the FISA courts to unmask Trump campaign
associates based on the dossier is criminal. Turning over that
information to other higher-ups in the Obama administration – that's
criminal. This is the kind of thing that happens in totalitarian
regimes.

For
all those who have been asking where Jeff Sessions has been, let me say he's
been thankfully quiet. He's gotten a lot of ill deserved
negativity. But he's a busy man. As you can see, so many
investigations, so little time. Likewise, the Republican
investigating committees are now doing their part. And Judicial
Watch. God bless them all.

Sean
Hannity calls this the year of the boomerang.

I'm
calling it the year of the sting. The chickens are coming home to
roost. Most of these people are going to jail. They
committed criminal acts.

It
took four years to dot the Is and cross the Ts to put away John
Gotti. It may take that long again, but it's happening, and
happening as I write. As we sit here, the Democrats are suddenly
running from the Trump dossier. They're all spinning with flushed
faces, trying to excuse (or more often ignore) the criminality of their
heroes. The evidence is accumulating. They are beginning
to whine about a "political investigation." To all of you
leftists who will be running away, it's not political; it was actually
criminal. And you let it happen with your dewy-eyed
worship. As you pointed fingers, criminality was being done by your
side.

We
don't know a lot of the details, but the greatest political sting in history is
ongoing. It's been dripping out for over a month and will continue
to do so. It's going to be epic. And it will devastate
the Democratic Party and its base.

But America will
rejoice. Criminals are going to be brought to their knees.

The gospel according to
the swamp

The
swamp has told us that the following events are nothing for us to worry or
concern ourselves about. We deplorables, clinging to our guns and
religion, should simply accept these and not question them.

Obama
gave 150 billion dollars to Iran. Iran is the chief sponsor of jihadist
terrorism and has sworn to destroy Israel, supports Hamas and Hezb'allah, and
will have nuclear weapons.

Obama
and Hillary approved the sale of 20% of our uranium to Russia. Hillary
received over $150 million to her foundation. Bill Clinton got speaking
gigs in Moscow paying about $500,000.

Trump
contacting the Russians to have them vote against the U.N. resolution to
condemn Israel in December 2016 warrants an investigation, but not the sale of
uranium to the Russians or the gift of $150 billion to Iran.

Hillary
and the DNC, through their attorneys, paid
Fusion GPS to pay Christopher Steele, a British spy, to manufacture
opposition research, using anonymous paid Russians as sources.

This
phony report was called a "dossier" to make it sound important.

The
dossier was shopped and leaked to the press and also given
to John McCain, always ready and willing to stab a Republican, who gave it to
the FBI.

Bruce
Ohr, the number-four man in the Obama Justice Department, met
with the Fusion people and Steele in November 2016, after Trump
defeated Hillary. We are not supposed to know why the Obama DOJ met with
Steele.

In
October 2016, the Obama Justice Department filed an application for a FISA
warrant to spy on the Donald Trump campaign.

It
appears that FBI agent Peter Strzok was involved in the FISA warrant process.
Strzok has been a busy boy. In spring 2016, he corrected James
Comey's exoneration letter of Hillary, written before Comey had interviewed
Hillary, tochange
the words "grossly negligent" to "extremely
careless."

It
seems that Comey was too dumb to realize that the words "grossly
negligent" meant that Hillary had violated the law, so Strzok changed the
wording.

Evidently,
Bill Clinton did not get a copy of the exoneration letter. Bill wanted to
be sure, so he met with Obama's attorney general, Lynch, by
"accident," at an airport, several days before FBI agent Strzok
questioned Hillary, not under oath. Why bother to question under
oath when the fix is in? Bubba could have saved himself a trip to the
airport.

Hillary
lost the election, so she and the swamp blamed the loss on Russian
"interference" with our election. The DNC claims that it was
hacked, but it refused to have the FBI inspect its computers, so the FBI
accepted the DNC's assertion that it was hacked.

On
March 2, 2017, Jeff Sessions, our A.G., recused himself from anything dealing
with "Russia." We learned on December 8, 2017 that Sessions was
cleared on March 7, 2017 of any improper "contact with the
Russians." But Sessions has not un-recused himself.

Rod
Rosenstein, deputy A.G., appointed Robert Mueller, Comey's pal. The law
requires that the appointment order specify
the crimes to be investigated.

But
Rosentstein appointed Mueller to investigate anything dealing with
Russia, without specifying what crime or crimes were committed.

Mueller
hired 20
attorneys who hate Trump; have worked for Obama and Hillary; and have
donated to Obama, Hillary, and other Dems.

Mueller
also hired Strzok. Strzok is a busy boy. He is having an affair
with a Justice Department attorney, also on Mueller's staff until September
2017. He sent her numerous
texts detailing his hate of Trump, in addition to ghostwriting
Comey's exoneration letter of Hillary and questioning Flynn.

Strzok
also interviewed Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. He gave bothimmunity.

Strzok
questioned Flynn in January 2017 about Flynn's contacts with the Russians.
It was an ambush interview at the W.H. Flynn did
not have an attorney present.

Flynn
had contacted the Russian ambassador in December 2016 to lobby Russia to vote
against the U.N. resolution to condemn Israel for its settlement policy.
The U.N. Security Council voted 14-0 to condemn Israel, with Obama abstaining.

Flynn
also contacted the Russians to lobby against retaliation by the Russians for
the Obama sanctions. These contacts upset Obama's Justice Department –
namely, Sally Yates, who thinks this violates the Logan Act. There has
not been a prosecution under the Logan Act in over 150 years. Sally also
was fired by Trump because she refused to enforce Trump's travel ban on
countries designated as terrorist by Obama and Trump.

Sally
was praised for her insubordination by Mueller's chief deputy, Weissman.
Weissman prosecuted the major accounting firm, Arthur Anderson, in the
Enron case, forcing Anderson out of business, resulting in the loss of over
10,000 jobs. The Supreme Court, 9-0, reversed
the conviction of Anderson.

Mueller
removed Strzok in July 2017 from his team but did not notify Congress about
this. Strzok remained on the FBI "Russia" squad.

The
DOJ never informed Congress about Bruce Ohr's meetings with Fusion and Steele.

Rod
Rosenstein presumably oversees the Mueller investigation because Sessions
recused himself. Rosenstein did not inform Congress about Strzok and Ohr.
Ohr, whose office is four doors down from Rod, was removed only
when Ohr's meetings are discovered by Congress and the media.

The
wife of Andrew McCabe, the number-two man in the FBI in charge of
"investigating" Hillary, received
over $700,000 from Terry McAuliffe, the money bag man for the Clintons,
for her political campaign for the Virginia legislature.

We
are supposed to trust the FBI, despite the conduct of McCabe, Strzok, and Comey.
We are supposed to trust the Department of Justice despite Lynch, Ohr,
Rosenstein, and Yates, and worse, Jeff Sessions. Sessions should
not haverecused himself.

Sessions
has allowed the Justice Department to be run by Rosenstein, which allowed
Mueller to establish a mini-Justice Department that resembles an Obama-Hillary
Justice Department, with an unlimited budget, to investigate
"Russian" collusion with the Trump campaign when there is no evidence
that Russia affected the results of the election. Moreover,
"collusion" is not a crime. The purpose of the investigation is
to create "process" crimes to ensnare those whose statements to the
FBI are deemed "lies" by the FBI.

If
we only had an attorney general willing to clean up the FBI and DOJ.

The term "Deep State" unleashes
many paranoid fantasies. Movies and spy stories abound about the
existence of dark, nefarious forces from our government aligned against us.
But as Joseph Heller once wrote, "Just because you're paranoid,
doesn't mean they aren't after you." One of the more disturbing
revelations after Trump's win was finding that these dark forces not only
exist, but are powerful and seemingly out of control.

"Deep State" is hard to define,
because it is composed of overlapping groups and individuals with complex and
differing agendas. It's an amalgam of people, agencies, and bureaucrats
that changes. The current leakers are part of it. For now, let's
say it's a mostly unelected, mostly leftist group within our government that
wants to govern us against the will of America's founding principles.
These people want the final say over our Republic. They want to rule, and
they form part of a powerful alliance against the current administration and
its voters. The one thing we can be thankful for is that they are showing
themselves to us in a way that should anger Americans of all political
persuasions. In the end, that's what we might hope for.

"Big Brother" was the term
Orwell used for the totalitarian presence of 1984. We are not
there. Maybe not even close. But the problem of the Deep State is
that there seem to be those who want the kind of power Orwell described, the
kind of power the Soviets had, or the East Germans. It's likely that many
Deep-Staters don't even realize just how power-mad they have become.

Here is a small list with their
fingerprints on it:

- The unmasking and subsequent takedown of General Michael
Flynn

- The daily leaks designed to impede or
embarrass the Trump administration

- The unmasking of hundreds of private
citizens working with the Trump campaign as reported by Circa News

- The bogus "Trump dossier"

- The bogus Trump-Russian collusion
narrative.

- The unseemly collusion between Robert
Mueller and James Comey

- The seeming insanity of Mueller
probing a nonexistent crime

- The exoneration of the Clinton crime
family

- The IRS targeting conservative groups

And lots more.

What we are watching is a group using
power willfully, wrongfully, and oftentimes illegally to undermine and destroy
political opponents. They are after somebody. For
real. From this list, we can surmise that their opponents appear to be
those of us on the center-right. And to those of you on the left who
don't know: This happened, and it's happening. You can pretend it's not
so, but it is.

Okay, some of you are tuning out.
This can't happen here, it's tinfoil hat stuff, the left really isn't that bad,
you're being overly paranoid, blah, blah, blah. Sorry, but this is
seriously bad stuff.

I recall back when the PATRIOT Act was
passed, noting a comment by Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit. He said powers
to surveil, and powers that could cross the lines of the bad guys' civil
liberties, were well and good, but in the wrong hands, those powers could and
would be misused.

Well, he was right. At the time, I
considered his fears over the top, but I was wrong. The history of the human race is
littered with tyrants who concentrated and misused power. The genius of the American system
adopted by the founding fathers was limiting and decentralizing government in a
way to protect our citizenry against this kind of tyranny. Systems were
put in place to check, balance, and limit the things that could be done by the
government against its people. The Bill of Rights is directed at that
problem. These rights were called inalienable, the natural and normal
rights given to us by God, not by our government. These were to be our
birthright as a nation. It's one of the many reasons our country has been
great and can be great again.

We have had bad players in our government,
we have made lots of mistakes and done wrong things as a nation, but what we
are seeing played out now is simply unprecedented. There is a quote attributed to Valerie
Jarrett, Obama adviser-enforcer and all-around bad human, that goes like this:

After we win this election, it's our
turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us, and they
better be ready, because we don't forget. The ones who helped us will be
rewarded; the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is
going to be hell to pay. Congress won't be a problem for us this time.
No election to worry about after this is over.

Let me say, there is no proof she said
this. But one thing that is real for sure is that much of what they did
in that administration, with her help, was to institutionalize those ideas as
their operating manual. The IRS scandal targeting conservative donors and
conservative organizations was a perfect example. Read the horrifying
story in Forbes of what happened to Catherine Engelbrecht if you think this
didn't happen. A terrible line had been crossed. Had she been a
liberal, we would hear her name for forty years or more.

This was just the tip of the
iceberg. The left has weaponized the bureaucracies and agencies it
inhabits. Leftists have decided they will become the dominant culture in
the CIA, FBI, NSA, IRS, EPA, and the rest of our bureaucracies. They
decided it's okay to be totalitarian, it's okay to break the law, it's okay to
go after their political opponents with the force of government, it's okay
because they are the ones who deserve to win. The Deep State running rampant is fine,
as long as they run it. From Valerie Jarrett to Barack Obama to James
Clapper and James Comey, they all visibly overstepped their rightful
boundaries. They are proof of the saying that power corrupts, and
absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Make no mistake: the prior administration
went rampant. The Deep

State did not originate with them, but
they stocked it with their

cronies. They stocked it with people
of similar left-leaning ideas, with similar left-leaning willingness to misuse
power. The Deep State became a weapon of intimidation and a deep abuser
of power. Thank
God Hillary was not there to take the baton.

So here we are, with the Deep State
running amok. They
are aligned with the Obamap-Clinton machine; they are generally in sync with
the Obama-Clinton goals. None of us knows exactly how this works, who sets the agenda, or
who has the capacity to give direction, but it is real. We do know that
many of the media are there to help, we do know that most of the Democratic
Party apparatus is there to help, and we do know some of the players. We
also know that most of the Democrat base, and many of the party's voters, are
naïvely on board, too. We may not understand the mechanism, but we do
know that the Deep State has become the vanguard of the left's civil war, and
it is not fictional.

They are self-motivated with a set of
goals. Get rid of Trump if they can. Get Trump's base to be
embarrassed of him or depressed if they can. Make certain that Trump
cannot succeed. Make certain his hands are tied in ways to make him less
effective. If nothing else, slow his progress to a snail's pace while
they marshal better forces.

The stupid party (Republicans), as usual,
has no clue. Too many Republicans just think this is normal or haven't
the stomach to fight. Heck, many of them are traitorously helping to take
down what their own voters and standard-bearer want to achieve. The
Democratic Party is fractured and has no idea how wrong this is (yet), and it
only helps parrot the talking points of its Deep State allies. Democrats
have no idea of the backlash they are creating toward themselves.

There is no distinct winner at this point.
But the battle is joined. It is clear that the Deep State intends
to continue using all its power to stop Trump, and to prevent a return to
checks and balances and limited government.

One important note: they are not winning.
The media may make it appear that they are, but they're not. Trump, his
administration and allies, and his voting base intend on continuing the fight
and winning. This is the major part of "draining the swamp."
The battle is in the balance, will last for years, and there are a lot of
reasons to believe that the Deep State will lose. One of the great
unintended consequences of Trump's win: They have been unmasked.

In the July/August version of the Atlantic,
columnist Peter Beinart wrote an article titled,

“How the Democrats Lost Their
Way on Immigration.”

“The next Democratic presidential
candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who
must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented
population to zero.”

inart, a frequent contributor to
the New York Times, New York Review of Books, Haaretz,
and former editor of the New Republic, blames immigration for
deteriorating social conditions for the American working class: The supposed
“costs” of immigration, he says, “strain the very welfare state that liberals
want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom
immigrants compete.”

The myth, which liberals like myself
find tempting, is that only the right has changed. In June 2015, we tell
ourselves, Donald Trump rode down his golden escalator and pretty soon
nativism, long a feature of conservative politics, had engulfed it. But that’s
not the full story. If the right has grown more nationalistic, the left has
grown less so. A decade ago, liberals publicly questioned immigration in ways
that would shock many progressives today.

Listen to the audio version of this article:Download the Audm app for your iPhone to listen to more
titles.In 2005, a left-leaning
blogger wrote, “Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and
culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on
basic fairness grounds alone.” In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that
“immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants”
and that “the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.” His
conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.” That
same year, a Democratic senator wrote, “When I see Mexican flags waved at
proimmigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic
resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy
fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”The blogger was Glenn
Greenwald. The columnist was Paul Krugman. The senator was Barack Obama.Prominent liberals didn’t
oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits to America’s
economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented.
Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages
of low-skilled American workers and strained America’s welfare state. And they
were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman
put it, “immigration is an intensely painful topic … because it places basic
principles in conflict.”Today, little of that
ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented
immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot continue to allow
people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,”
adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who
employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language was gone.
The party’s platform described America’s immigration system as a problem, but
not illegal immigration itself. And it focused almost entirely on the forms of
immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration section, the
2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country “illegally.”
The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn’t use the word illegal,
or any variation of it, at all.“A decade or two ago,” says Jason Furman, a
former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “Democrats
were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is passionate and thinks
very little about any potential downsides.” How did this come to be?

There are
several explanations for liberals’ shift. The first is that they have
changed because the reality on the ground has changed, particularly as regards
illegal immigration. In the two decades preceding 2008, the United States
experienced sharp growth in its undocumented population. Since then, the
numbers have leveled off.

But this alone doesn’t explain the transformation. The number of
undocumented people in the United States hasn’t gone down significantly, after
all; it’s stayed roughly the same. So the economic concerns that Krugman raised
a decade ago remain relevant today.

A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016,
Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino
population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats
convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of
immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. “The fastest-growing
sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this
November,” Salon declared after Obama’s 2008 win. “If that
pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.”As
the Democrats grew more reliant on Latino votes, they were more influenced by
pro-immigrant activism. While Obama was running for reelection,
immigrants’-rights advocates launched protests against the administration’s
deportation practices; these protests culminated, in June 2012, in a sit-in at
an Obama campaign office in Denver. Ten days later, the administration
announced that it would defer the deportation of undocumented immigrants who
had arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and met various other criteria.
Obama, The New York Times noted, “was facing growing pressure
from Latino leaders and Democrats who warned that because of his harsh
immigration enforcement, his support was lagging among Latinos who could be
crucial voters in his race for re-election.”Alongside pressure from
pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the
Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import
workers. In 2010, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the CEOs of
companies including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney, and News Corporation,
formed New American Economy to advocate for business-friendly immigration
policies. Three years later, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates helped found FWD.us
to promote a similar agenda.This combination of Latino
and corporate activism made it perilous for Democrats to discuss immigration’s
costs, as Bernie Sanders learned the hard way. In July 2015, two months after
officially announcing his candidacy for president, Sanders was interviewed by
Ezra Klein, the editor in chief of Vox. Klein asked whether, in
order to fight global poverty, the U.S. should consider “sharply raising the
level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders.” Sanders
reacted with horror. “That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he scoffed. He went on
to insist that “right-wing people in this country would love … an open-border
policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be
great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this
country.”Progressive commentators
routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s
benefits. There isn’t.Sanders came under immediate attack. Vox’s
Dylan Matthews declared that his “fear of immigrant labor is ugly—and
wrongheaded.” The president of FWD.us accused Sanders of “the sort of
backward-looking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away from in the
past years.” ThinkProgress published a blog post titled “Why
Immigration Is the Hole in Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda.” The senator, it
argued, was supporting “the idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking
jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect.”Sanders
stopped emphasizing immigration’s costs. By January 2016, FWD.us’s policy
director noted with satisfaction that he had “evolved on this issue.”But has the claim that
“immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs” actually been proved
“incorrect”? A decade ago, liberals weren’t so sure. In 2006, Krugman wrote
that America was experiencing “large increases in the number of low-skill
workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable that this
means a fall in wages.”It’s hard to imagine a
prominent liberal columnist writing that sentence today. To the contrary,
progressive commentators now routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus
among economists on immigration’s benefits.(Illustration by Lincoln Agnew.
Photos: AFP; Atta Kenare; Eric Lafforgue; Gamma-Rapho; Getty; Keystone-France;
Koen van Weel; Lambert; Richard Baker / In Pictures / Corbis)There isn’t. According
to a comprehensive new report by the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine, “Groups comparable to … immigrants in terms of their
skill may experience a wage reduction as a result of immigration-induced
increases in labor supply.” But academics sometimes de-emphasize this wage
reduction because, like liberal journalists and politicians, they face
pressures to support immigration.Many of the immigration
scholars regularly cited in the press have worked for, or received funding
from, pro-immigration businesses and associations. Consider, for instance,
Giovanni Peri, an economist at UC Davis whose name pops up a lot in liberal
commentary on the virtues of immigration. A 2015 New York Times
Magazine essay titled “Debunking the Myth of the Job-Stealing
Immigrant” declared that Peri, whom it called the “leading scholar” on how
nations respond to immigration, had “shown that immigrants tend to
complement—rather than compete against—the existing work force.” Peri is indeed
a respected scholar. But Microsoft has funded some of his research into
high-skilled immigration. And New American Economy paid to help him turn his
research into a 2014 policy paper decrying limitations on the H-1B visa
program. Such grants are more likely the result of his scholarship than their
cause. Still, the prevalence of corporate funding can subtly influence which
questions economists ask, and which ones they don’t. (Peri says grants like
those from Microsoft and New American Economy are neither large nor crucial to his
work, and that “they don’t determine … the direction of my academic
research.”)Academics face cultural pressures too. In his book Exodus,
Paul Collier, an economist at the University of Oxford, claims that in their
“desperate [desire] not to give succor” to nativist bigots, “social scientists
have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone.” George
Borjas of Harvard argues that since he began studying immigration in the 1980s,
his fellow economists have grown far less tolerant of research that emphasizes
its costs. There is, he told me, “a lot of self-censorship among young social
scientists.” Because Borjas is an immigration skeptic, some might discount his
perspective. But when I asked Donald Davis, a Columbia University economist who
takes a more favorable view of immigration’s economic impact, about Borjas’s
claim, he made a similar point. “George and I come out on different sides of
policy on immigration,” Davis said, “but I agree that there are aspects of
discussion in academia that don’t get sort of full view if you come to the
wrong conclusion.”

None of this means that liberals
should oppose immigration. Entry to the United States is, for starters, a boon
to immigrants and to the family members back home to whom they send money. It
should be valued on these moral grounds alone. But immigration benefits the
economy, too. Because immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to
be of working age, they improve the ratio of workers to retirees, which helps
keep programs like Social Security and Medicare solvent. Immigration has also
been found to boost productivity, and the National Academies report finds that
“natives’ incomes rise in aggregate as a result of immigration.”

The problem is that, although economists differ about the extent
of the damage, immigration hurts the Americans with whom immigrants compete.
And since more than a quarter of America’s recent immigrants lack even a
high-school diploma or its equivalent, immigration particularly hurts the
least-educated native workers, the very people who are already struggling the
most. America’s immigration system, in other words, pits two of the groups
liberals care about most—the native-born poor and the immigrant poor—against
each other.One way of mitigating this
problem would be to scrap the current system, which allows immigrants living in
the U.S. to bring certain close relatives to the country, in favor of what
Donald Trump in February called a “merit based” approach that prioritizes
highly skilled and educated workers. The problem with this idea, from a liberal
perspective, is its cruelty. It denies many immigrants who are already here the
ability to reunite with their loved ones. And it flouts the country’s best
traditions. Would we remove from the Statue of Liberty the poem welcoming the
“poor,” the “wretched,” and the “homeless”?A better answer is to take
some of the windfall that immigration brings to wealthier Americans and give it
to those poorer Americans whom immigration harms. Borjas has suggested taxing the
high-tech, agricultural, and service-sector companies that profit from cheap
immigrant labor and using the money to compensate those Americans who are
displaced by it.Unfortunately, while admitting poor immigrants makes
redistributing wealth more necessary, it also makes it harder, at least in the
short term. By some estimates, immigrants, who are poorer on average than
native-born Americans and have larger families, receive more in government
services than they pay in taxes. According to the National Academies report,
immigrant-headed families with children are 15 percentage points more likely to
rely on food assistance, and 12 points more likely to rely on Medicaid, than
other families with children. In the long term, the United States will likely
recoup much if not all of the money it spends on educating and caring for the
children of immigrants. But in the meantime, these costs strain the very
welfare state that liberals want to expand in order to help those native-born
Americans with whom immigrants compete.What’s more, studies by the
Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam and others suggest that greater
diversity makes Americans less charitable and less willing to redistribute
wealth. People tend to be less generous when large segments of society
don’t look or talk like them. Surprisingly, Putnam’s research suggests that
greater diversity doesn’t reduce trust and cooperation just among people of
different races or ethnicities—it also reduces trust and cooperation among
people of the same race and ethnicity.Trump appears to sense this.
His implicit message during the campaign was that if the government kept out
Mexicans and Muslims, white, Christian Americans would not only grow richer and
safer, they would also regain the sense of community that they identified with
a bygone age. “At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the
United States of America,” he declared in his inaugural address, “and through
our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.”Liberals
must take seriously Americans’ yearning for social cohesion. To promote both
mass immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more
native-born white Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of
national identity. This means dusting off a concept many on the left currently
hate: assimilation.

Promoting assimilation need not
mean expecting immigrants to abandon their culture. But it does mean breaking
down the barriers that segregate them from the native-born. And it means
celebrating America’s diversity less, and its unity more.

Writing last year in American Sociological Review,
Ariela Schachter, a sociology professor at Washington University in St. Louis,
examined the factors that influence how native-born whites view immigrants.
Foremost among them is an immigrant’s legal status. Given that natives often
assume Latinos are undocumented even when they aren’t, it follows that illegal
immigration indirectly undermines the status of those Latinos who live in the
U.S. legally. That’s why conservatives rail against government benefits for
undocumented immigrants (even though the undocumented are already barred from
receiving many of those benefits): They know Americans will be more reluctant
to support government programs if they believe those programs to be benefiting
people who have entered the country illegally.Liberal immigration policy
must work to ensure that immigrants do not occupy a separate legal caste. This
means opposing the guest-worker programs—beloved by many Democrat-friendly tech
companies, among other employers—that require immigrants to work in a
particular job to remain in the U.S. Some scholars believe such programs drive
down wages; they certainly inhibit assimilation. And, as Schachter’s research
suggests, strengthening the bonds of identity between natives and immigrants is
harder when natives and immigrants are not equal under the law.The next
Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because
Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to
reduce America’s undocumented population to zero. For liberals, the easy part
of fulfilling that pledge is supporting a path to citizenship for the
undocumented who have put down roots in the United States. The hard part, which
Hillary Clinton largely ignored in her 2016 presidential run, is backing tough
immigration enforcement so that path to citizenship doesn’t become a magnet
that entices more immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally.Enforcement need not mean
tearing apart families, as Trump is doing with gusto. Liberals can propose that
the government deal harshly not with the undocumented themselves but with their
employers. Trump’s brutal policies already appear to be slowing illegal
immigration. But making sure companies follow the law and verify the legal
status of their employees would curtail it too: Migrants would presumably be
less likely to come to the U.S. if they know they won’t be able to find work.In 2014, the University of
California listed the term melting pot as a “microaggression.”
What if Hillary Clinton had called that absurd?Schachter’s research also shows
that native-born whites feel a greater affinity toward immigrants who speak
fluent English. That’s particularly significant because, according to the
National Academies report, newer immigrants are learning English more slowly
than their predecessors did. During the campaign, Clinton proposed increasing
funding for adult English-language education. But she rarely talked about it.
In fact, she ran an ad attacking Trump for saying, among other things, “This is
a country where we speak English, not Spanish.” The immigration section of her
website showed her surrounded by Spanish-language signs.Democrats should put
immigrants’ learning English at the center of their immigration agenda. If more
immigrants speak English fluently, native-born whites may well feel a stronger
connection to them, and be more likely to support government policies that help
them. Promoting English will also give Democrats a greater chance of attracting
those native-born whites who consider growing diversity a threat. According to
a preelection study by Adam Bonica, a Stanford political scientist, the single
best predictor of whether a voter supported Trump was whether he or she agreed
with the statement “People living in the U.S. should follow American customs
and traditions.”In her 2005 book, The
Authoritarian Dynamic, which has been heralded for identifying the forces
that powered Trump’s campaign, Karen Stenner, then a professor of politics at
Princeton, wrote:

Exposure to difference, talking about
difference, and applauding difference—the hallmarks of liberal democracy—are
the surest ways to aggravate those who are innately intolerant, and to
guarantee the increased expression of their predispositions in manifestly
intolerant attitudes and behaviors. Paradoxically, then, it would seem that we
can best limit intolerance of difference by parading, talking about, and
applauding our sameness.

The next Democratic presidential nominee should commit those words
to memory. There’s a reason Barack Obama’s declaration at the 2004 Democratic
National Convention that “there is not a liberal America and a conservative
America … There is not a black America and white America and Latino America and
Asian America; there’s the United States of America” is among his most famous
lines. Americans know that liberals celebrate diversity. They’re less sure that
liberals celebrate unity. And Obama’s ability to effectively do the latter
probably contributed to the fact that he—a black man with a Muslim-sounding
name—twice won a higher percentage of the white vote than did Hillary
Clinton.In 2014, the University of California listed melting pot as
a term it considered a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had traveled
to one of its campuses and called that absurd? What if she had challenged elite
universities to celebrate not merely multiculturalism and globalization but
Americanness? What if she had said more boldly that the slowing rate of English-language
acquisition was a problem she was determined to solve? What if she had
acknowledged the challenges that mass immigration brings, and then insisted
that Americans could overcome those challenges by focusing not on what makes
them different but on what makes them the same?Some on the left would have
howled. But I suspect that Clinton would be president today.

THE OBAMA DOCTRINE OF OPEN BORDERS TO
DESTROY AMERICA… The first step to building a Muslim-style dictatorship

"More than 728,000 illegal
immigrants have been shielded from being deported and granted
work permits through President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive amnesty program,
according to the Migration Policy Institute."

HILLARY CLINTON: Closet Republican

…and Openly a LA RAZA SUPREMACIST agent
for Mexico!

"The
same period has seen a massive growth of social inequality, with income and
wealth concentrated at the very top of American society to an extent not seen
since the 1920s."

"He (Trump) is
able to get a hearing because millions of people are being driven
into economic insecurity and poverty while the rich and
the super-rich continue to amass obscene levels
of wealth. He is able with some success to
divert mass discontent along reactionary nationalist
and racialist channels precisely
because what passes for the “left” in American politics,
anchor by the Democratic Party, has moved ever further
to the right, culminating in the Obama administration which
has presided over endless war and an unprecedented redistribution of
wealth from the bottom to the top of the economic ladder."

HSBC laundered
hundreds of millions and perhaps billions of dollars for drug
cartels responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people
over the past two decades. The bank transferred at least $881 million
of known drug trafficking proceeds, including money from the Sinaloa
Cartel in Mexico, which is known for dismembering its victims and publicly
displaying their body parts.

OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS: You were wondering
how many jobs went to illegals and how well Obama’s crony banksters have
done???

The sputtering economic recovering under
President Obama, the last to follow a major recession, has fallen way short of
the average recovery and ranks as the worst since the 1930s Great Depression,
according to a new report.

Had the recovery under Obama been the
average of the 11 since the Depression, according to the report, family incomes
would be $17,000 higher, six million fewer Americans would be in poverty, and
there would be six million more jobs.

“The lifetime costs of
Social Security and Medicare benefits of illegal immigrant beneficiaries of
President Obama’s executive amnesty would be well over a trillion dollars,
according to Heritage Foundation expert Robert Rector’s prepared testimony for
a House panel obtained in advance by Breitbart News.”

BILLIONAIRES FOR
BORDERLESS AMERICA

….It’s all to keep wages
DEPRESSED.

“This nation no
longer is a democratic republic ...rather it has become a tool of the super-rich
members of the above mentioned elite who preselect our presidents based on
their cooperation and complicity with the elite’s ultimate goals. Obama has, in
their opinion done superbly carrying out the plans well laid out for him by his
backers.”

While the declining job market in the
United States may be discouraging some would-be border crossers, a flow of
illegal aliens continues unabated, with many entering the United States as
drug-smuggling “mules.”

Casting a shadow on economic recovery
efforts in the United States is the cost of illegal immigration that consumes
U.S. taxpayer dollars for education, healthcare, social welfare benefits, and
criminal justice. Illegal aliens (or more politically correct, “undocumented
immigrants”) with ties to Mexican drug cartels are contributing to death and
destruction on U.S. lands along the southern border.

While the declining job market in the
United States may be discouraging some would-be border crossers, a flow of
illegal aliens continues unabated, with many entering the United States as
drug-smuggling “mules.”

What does the US Department of Justice,
the Sinaloa drug cartel, and the spy corporation Stratfor have in common?
According to CIA documents leaked by WikiLeaks, they’re all at the center of
the new US strategy in the War on Drugs. In 2012, Whiteout Press exposed the
shocking alliance in the article, ‘Secret
US Alliance with Sinaloa Cartel exposed’.

“According to Immigration and Customers
Enforcement data first obtained by the Associated Press this week, about 70
percent of the 40,000 migrant family members arrested at the border since May
did not follow up their arrest with a necessary visit to an immigration
office.”

The Democratic earthquake

I don't know if you've felt them, but we've had many warnings of a major catastrophic human-made earthquake that threatens the foundations of our 242-year-old existence as a free nation. The needle on the political Richter scale started shaking after the 2000 election of George W. Bush. The rumblings began with the Democrats contesting the 527-vote Florida game-changing presidential win by Bush over Gore that eventually was confirmed by a recount. Thereafter, Bush was for his eight more years in the White House referred to and treated by the left as America's first sitting "non-president."

Then we suffered the rattling election of Barack Obama, whose active membership in a white-, Jewish-, and America-hating church was well known to the electorate. His close personal relationship with the likes of his adored Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan was no secret. Obama was open about his goals. He told us he was out to "fundamentally transform America" and the world. He did, with racial unrest, blacks against whites, attacks against law enforcement, hatred against people of wealth, the cover-up of Muslim hate crimes, the admission of millions of illegals, the deliberate condemnations of our nation's history, the "Arab Spring" that turned the Middle East into a raging inferno of destruction and death, the support to the terrorist nation of Iran, and the eight-year unsuccessful effort to undermine the Jewish State of Israel. Worrisome tremblings, indeed.

Recently, the threats have increased in volume and intensity with the election of Donald Trump in 2016. The grinding Democrat tectonic plates beneath our (small "d") democracy have sent rumbling tremors that indicate a major catastrophe to our nation on the horizon. The forces of hate against our president have reached catastrophic levels on the political seismic scale that threaten to take down the pillars of liberty and freedom. The fraudulently concocted charges of treason and collusion with an enemy nation against Trump have shaken the nation's stability. Calls for his impeachment, his assassination, and physical attacks against his staff and supporters have rattled us all. And our Democratic elected leaders are feeding this frenzy. The recent live broadcasts of the funerals of Aretha Franklin and John McCain coming so close together should have knocked us off our feet, with the eulogists standing over caskets, attacking our legally elected president. The shock of having three open haters of whites, Jews, and America in the first row at the Franklin services seated purposely and openly right next to a former president should have rocked our senses. But it didn't...and that's scary.

Lastly, perhaps the most significant recent shudders came in the current Senate hearings for the appointment of a new Supreme Court justice. The well planned observer tantrums requiring the ejection of violent demonstrators for the whole world to see, along with the coordinated Democratic disruption from the official seats, represented a massive threat to our liberties.

We have no control of nature. Earthquakes, volcanoes, storms, and tsunamis are generated by Earth's forces. But the undermining rattling of our halls of justice, our Constitution, and our liberties for which so many have sacrificed their lives is occurring because we are permitting it to happen. The willful closing of our eyes to the earth-shaking warning signals of calamity, growing not only in frequency but in intensity, will result in irreparable cracks in the foundations of our liberties and freedom. The next shock may be coming soon.